Re: [saag] [Roll] security for multi-link subnets
Ulrich Herberg <ulrich@herberg.name> Tue, 12 March 2013 18:31 UTC
Return-Path: <ulrich@herberg.name>
X-Original-To: saag@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: saag@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7EF211E8166 for <saag@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 11:31:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6sLYJBfZfyi7 for <saag@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 11:31:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ve0-f170.google.com (mail-ve0-f170.google.com [209.85.128.170]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A57F311E8164 for <saag@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 11:31:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ve0-f170.google.com with SMTP id 14so135823vea.1 for <saag@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 11:31:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herberg.name; s=dkim; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=3QDnNIGtnL7IyVT4Gy42llRn27yRE/3V0bWL7fcyi7w=; b=Gun6wHuC6D5RkcF5MNyqhnQ1Xl62IAurV6crJ7lV3jYKthD1GBy/k+hALFQ/JaFY9C nwlZ5y4Tbz6epqKAXFwHFj7gHE53VYqPeZF7i69kNEsQRx+mdntJBI1xyIkjbqaHQX0r yfY1mTvUNtjxYTCgxIgooa+FOKdgZbUYDegP0=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=3QDnNIGtnL7IyVT4Gy42llRn27yRE/3V0bWL7fcyi7w=; b=Hjpjco6sQ/welwY7QLdjIkzhvwnBcvNTygix/PQyNFyRzoK63AhQrI1K2nCsSF2h20 ab96tHq58iwmRuvPpjGGQGrRhQmGpkRxcNBkiNTFEUa6uNMac/yuJOS9F5TqYn2ppRrS 1VvMt/VV12gHjD6MrPNbEcJc+gb9hWayHgHQWn8k1ljmxJqBYBqtCVW8hMC460jY3mU9 M4/bHeUkmU4xIh7ZQcqmFbiRfDWebgzq5Z5xbfwMwlIwnkKng8MO52FSZSeWbEQAdG22 iAyAOtEB+WSQ62VfKVDknF0owTPyVbzz2f/N/tG8X+45b2bpWAiAHf3ZijsPkmt/7BZ8 QHkw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.52.29.136 with SMTP id k8mr6015520vdh.40.1363113105105; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 11:31:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.106.202 with HTTP; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 11:31:44 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <12252.1363112423@sandelman.ca>
References: <12252.1363112423@sandelman.ca>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 14:31:44 -0400
Message-ID: <CAK=bVC9YV3nEtGe1LTUkg3AztiKG6dCJe8Bd4L-UkKLeuj1urg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ulrich Herberg <ulrich@herberg.name>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlTb4giF3xj7Q3Ee6rjCPUWugkDIihuboXdF2s/eGOuVU1B+VmFbc8t3UE6DjHtjRGJPdpj
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 08:12:05 -0700
Cc: roll@ietf.org, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>, saag@ietf.org, Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [saag] [Roll] security for multi-link subnets
X-BeenThere: saag@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Advisory Group <saag.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/saag>, <mailto:saag-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/saag>
List-Post: <mailto:saag@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:saag-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag>, <mailto:saag-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 18:31:46 -0000
Michael, I think it is also worth mentioning RFC4903, in particular: "A multi-link subnet model should be avoided. IETF working groups using, or considering using, multi-link subnets today should investigate moving to one of the other models." Have the issues mentioned in RFC4903 been sufficiently addressed? Best regards Ulrich On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote: > > It was pointed out in a private discussion that the inclusion of > security parameters in the ROLL applicability statements might be > surprising to some. For those who want a quick look: > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-applicability-template/ > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-rpl-industrial-applicability/ > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-brandt-roll-rpl-applicability-home-building/ > > Specifically, people wouldn't not normally think to look at > applicability statements for a routing protocol to see that it is > specifying not just security parameters for the routing protocol > itself, but in some cases, requirements on access to the LLN as well. > > I agreed that perhaps this needed additional socialization, which I'm > trying to do with this email. > > Some of my logic of what we are doing is that by (securely) assembling > a bunch of links into a multi-link subnet, that in effect the ROLL > applicability statements are in effect a kind of IP-over-FOO document. > > To parallel it to other IP-over-FOO documents better, they often specify > things like how to encapsulate, and how to do address resolution on the > subnet. > > RPL LLNs do not use stock-ND/ARP (which normally would be specified in an > IP-over-FOO document), but rather use the RPL messages to discover other > nodes on the subnet. I have asked that the applicability statements > be clear about if they use RFC6775 (6lowpan-ND), and if so, how. > > It was suggested really, we never did that before: specify security of > the network in IP-over-FOO documents. Well, that's true, because we > never did a an IP-over-802.11, because it was ethernet. > > When WIFI's various incarnations happened (remember borrowing 2Mb/s *FH* > wireless PCICIA cards back at IETF46?), they tried hard to make it look > like ethernet, with ethernet-like physical security (WEP == "Wired Equivalent > Privacy"). It's too bad that we didn't get more involved at the time, > in the end, we did EAP and keyprov in great part to get that part done > right. I still think that the 802.11 security is largely a disaster. > > It is possible that the problem is the word "applicability", and perhaps > we should have a different term. I would welcome discussion here, or > even just +1 that this is the right approach. > > > > > -- > Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works > IETF ROLL WG co-chair. http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/ > > > _______________________________________________ > Roll mailing list > Roll@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll >
- [saag] security for multi-link subnets Michael Richardson
- Re: [saag] [Roll] security for multi-link subnets Michael Richardson
- Re: [saag] [Roll] security for multi-link subnets Ulrich Herberg
- Re: [saag] [Roll] security for multi-link subnets Don Sturek
- Re: [saag] [Roll] security for multi-link subnets Ulrich Herberg